I am already on record as being opposed to Continuing Education, but as a continuation of my prior comments on this matter, I would like to clarify the importance of one of my points by further detail in this separate message: 

If CE is to be required, the Board should allow the regulants maximum flexibility to decide what is appropriate continuing education as well as where and how this CE will be accomplished and to avoid making the location, topic, type and timing of the education overly structured.

Since it appears that Continuing Education is to be the "law of the land", we regulants should be given the latitude to determine what we consider materially important to our practice/discipline and where and when we take such continuing education.  If the Board limits the CE to educational institutions and third-parties companies, the profit motive of the organizations will decide what gets taught and what doesn't, not to mention the potential of a variety of other problems and inefficiencies which I've seen in CE courses I've taken over the past 16 years.

One of my great fears with the proposed CE system for Virginia licensed professionals is that the Board will limit, in typical 20th century style, the options that regulants have for satisfying these requirements to certain educational institutions and third-party organizations who DO NOT have, as their prime motivation, improving engineering for the public.  Therefore, I believe the Board should recognize that the regulant is the entity that knows best what they need to maintain knowledge of and that the Board should be very flexible in its implementation of the General Assembly's 2006 mandate by acknowledging that knowledge comes from many sources.  By allowing options such as online  study or courses, independent research, the publishing of white papers & technical research and the teaching of courses within the industry, the Board fulfills the General Assembly's mandate, but not to the detriment of the licensed professionals or to the profit of outside groups that are not dedicated to this profession as we are.

Let's hope that the Board does not cave into the education lobby who are probably licking their chops to get a corner on the market by limiting our options to satisfy this now-State required education.  There is NO WAY that third party organizations know better what we licensed professionals need to serve the public than us.

Gregory J. Budnik, P.E., President, GJB Engineering Inc.